Gun Control

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

That is because those proposing such increased safety measures have other objectives in mind, and propose such things as an overall strategy of incrementally more restrictive firearm legislation. And we gun nuts are on to that strategy, and fight everything tooth and nail because of it.

When in doubt blame the other side of being part of a greater conspiracy.

leavitron, when you make posts like this (citing a study by pediatricians for extra hilarity), it's not even remotely clear to me what your larger point is besides disagreeing situationally with whatever argument is put in front of you:

leavitron wrote:

It's been fairly well proven that kids are attracted to guns and won't treat them as they are taught: to leave the gun alone and go tell a parent. So if those children are attracted and are going to mess with the guns then it is reasonable to conclude that they are going to try to take the lock off. It's not a stretch that said children know about Youtube and how to Google. So they will find videos on how to remove the locks.

So if it's your belief that kids can't be trusted not to fuck with guns regardless of what they are taught, and locking mechanisms do not fit your standard of absolute safety / are a conspiracy, then what is your solution? You have kids and guns, presumably, so this is something you grapple with.

For the sake of argument, what doctorly or casual advice would you give yourself?

Safe's can be broken into. If locks are useless because somebody with access to the Internet can figure out how to break into them, how come the same logic wouldn't apply to a safe?

It would seem to me that maybe people should watch what their kid attempts to learn about on the Internet. I know I'd be a tad concerned if my 8 year old starting showing an interest in picking locks and defeating security measures.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

That is because those proposing such increased safety measures have other objectives in mind, and propose such things as an overall strategy of incrementally more restrictive firearm legislation. And we gun nuts are on to that strategy, and fight everything tooth and nail because of it.

When in down blame the other side of being part of a greater conspiracy.

How do you tell the difference between an actual compromise (and we'll go no further) and a "conspiracy to slow walk" when the group negotiating is known to have a very strong anti-whatever stance? You can say the same about any issue with very polar opinions.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

That is because those proposing such increased safety measures have other objectives in mind, and propose such things as an overall strategy of incrementally more restrictive firearm legislation. And we gun nuts are on to that strategy, and fight everything tooth and nail because of it.

When in down blame the other side of being part of a greater conspiracy.

How do you tell the difference between an actual compromise (and we'll go no further) and a "conspiracy to slow walk" when the group negotiating is known to have a very strong anti-whatever stance? You can say the same about any issue with very polar opinions.

You look at each measure and see if it makes sense. Or you could see shadow men, conspiracy, and the other side as the debil at every turn.

Safe's can be broken into. If locks are useless because somebody with access to the Internet can figure out how to break into them, how come the same logic wouldn't apply to a safe?

It would seem to me that maybe people should watch what their kid attempts to learn about on the Internet. I know I'd be a tad concerned if my 8 year old starting showing an interest in picking locks and defeating security measures.

If he believes that kids can't be trusted with guns, and locks are ineffective, what other choice is there but a big ass, heavy metal box to prevent all but the most determined kiddies? I am saying this in jest, but he is bending over backwards to defend a dig against the medical community recommending an innocuous piece of advice. Just like with cribs and strollers, it is up to a parent to pick a good one. A doctor saying that a gun owner should look into gun locks or other safety measure is along those same lines.

I just want to be clear that I'm not suggesting any law directly influence manufacture or mandating types of storage of firearms.

I'm concerned with a) the consumer safety standards to which third-party locking mechanisms are held (which may or may not be government mandated, and b) the "best practices" for storage and safety in a household with children, as advocated by knowledgeable individuals or organizations that are considered reliable by people that Know What They Are Doing, per leavitron's assertion.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

That is because those proposing such increased safety measures have other objectives in mind, and propose such things as an overall strategy of incrementally more restrictive firearm legislation. And we gun nuts are on to that strategy, and fight everything tooth and nail because of it.

When in down blame the other side of being part of a greater conspiracy.

How do you tell the difference between an actual compromise (and we'll go no further) and a "conspiracy to slow walk" when the group negotiating is known to have a very strong anti-whatever stance? You can say the same about any issue with very polar opinions.

You look at each measure and see if it makes sense.

Like bans of guns with black plastic stocks but if you take the actual 'gun' bit and put it in a wooden stock then it's OK (basically the whole 'scary black gun' issue)? Or people who want to pass legislation to ban various bullet types, including "heat seeking bullets" (which do not exist, at least for civilians)? The problem is that lots of the regulation bills that are introduced (and some that even passed) have *already* failed the "see if it makes sense" test.

Actually, if the argument is that kids can't be trusted with guns and will find a way around any security you set up, then the answer actually does become "Don't have guns in your house if you have kids". I don't think that's his position, however.

Like bans of guns with black plastic stocks but if you take the actual 'gun' bit and put it in a wooden stock then it's OK (basically the whole 'scary black gun' issue)? Or people who want to pass legislation to ban various bullet types, including "heat seeking bullets" (which do not exist, at least for civilians)? The problem is that lots of the regulation bills that are introduced (and some that even passed) have *already* failed the "see if it makes sense" test.

The fact that there are bad laws that have passed reguarding this issue is not a case for all laws to be fought against.

That's like saying that you shouldn't regulate the banking industry at all because we can find example of a bad banking law that was passed in the future.

Fight the bad laws, point out when they don't make sense, and don't fight the ones that do. That doesn't seem like asking to much from people on any issue.

Safe's can be broken into. If locks are useless because somebody with access to the Internet can figure out how to break into them, how come the same logic wouldn't apply to a safe?

It would seem to me that maybe people should watch what their kid attempts to learn about on the Internet. I know I'd be a tad concerned if my 8 year old starting showing an interest in picking locks and defeating security measures.

If he believes that kids can't be trusted with guns, and locks are ineffective, what other choice is there but a big ass, heavy metal box to prevent all but the most determined kiddies? I am saying this in jest, but he is bending over backwards to defend a dig against the medical community recommending an innocuous piece of advice. Just like with cribs and strollers, it is up to a parent to pick a good one. A doctor saying that a gun owner should look into gun locks or other safety measure is along those same lines.

CLARKSBURG, WV - Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, told users of the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) today that industry fully supports Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell's call for making mental health and other prohibiting information available to NICS to ensure that illegal firearm purchases are prevented.

Keane was an invited speaker at the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System User Conference at NICS headquarters here. Attending the conference were federal NICS officials and officials from "point of contact' states that use NICS fully or in part to conduct background checks on firearms purchasers.

"Firearms retailers nationwide rely on NICS to facilitate and ensure the lawful transfer of guns to law-abiding citizens, and the efficient system, which our industry supports, can be made even better with the addition of mental health adjudication and other prohibiting records," said Keane.

In a letter sent last month to other governors, Gov. McDonell urged states to make available to NICS the most comprehensive data available on persons prohibited from possessing firearms, including "mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds." The governor's letter referenced the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings five years ago and that the shooter was able to purchase a firearm legally from a federally licensed firearms retailer "because information about his prohibiting mental health was not available to deny the transfer . . . ."

Keane said that Gov. McDonnell and Virginia have shown leadership in making such information available to NICS. "When other states follow Virginia's example, the background check system will function more effectively to help prevent illegal purchases of firearms by those who are prohibited," said Keane.

Keane told attendees that NSSF supports Gov. McDonnell's effort because industry supports the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA) that addresses gaps in information available to NICS, such as court decisions related to individuals' mental health status. The law was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Retailer Background Checks on Employees

Keane also voiced NSSF's support for legislation that would allow federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to conduct a background check on their current or prospective employees, an action currently prohibited unless the retailer is transferring a firearm to the employee. "Performing employee background checks are one way that retailers can ensure the integrity of their staffs and, ultimately, their businesses," said Keane.

A change in the Brady Act and regulations would allow FFLs to access NICS on a voluntary, no-fee basis to conduct the background check on an employee without fear of liability under the Fair Credit Report Act.

Keane expressed industry's appreciation to attendees for their role in helping to make the NICS system function. He noted that NICS has never been busier, citing statistics showing how background checks have been increasing over time. The NICS system is one indicator of market activity for firearms, the sales of which have increased dramatically in recent months.

Safe's can be broken into. If locks are useless because somebody with access to the Internet can figure out how to break into them, how come the same logic wouldn't apply to a safe?

It would seem to me that maybe people should watch what their kid attempts to learn about on the Internet. I know I'd be a tad concerned if my 8 year old starting showing an interest in picking locks and defeating security measures.

If he believes that kids can't be trusted with guns, and locks are ineffective, what other choice is there but a big ass, heavy metal box to prevent all but the most determined kiddies? I am saying this in jest, but he is bending over backwards to defend a dig against the medical community recommending an innocuous piece of advice. Just like with cribs and strollers, it is up to a parent to pick a good one. A doctor saying that a gun owner should look into gun locks or other safety measure is along those same lines.

Yes, this.

Actually, and this might just be because I lived in several rentals in Idaho that happened to come with safes, I'd prefer if a big-ass safe was part of building codes. We'd probably see a decrease in valuables stolen, firearms included.

Correct. But imagine for a moment a person who doesn't understand much of the law except that mental issues can be considered grounds for denial of gun rights, and is dealing with a minor depression. What if that thought that maybe the doctor will decide it isn't minor, or discover it is something else, push him away from seeking treatment?

Correct. But imagine for a moment a person who doesn't understand much of the law except that mental issues can be considered grounds for denial of gun rights, and is dealing with a minor depression. What if that thought that maybe the doctor will decide it isn't minor, or discover it is something else, push him away from seeking treatment?

I'm not sure I understand. If this person is aware enough to make this calculation, why would this new data integration be the turning point? It's already grounds for denial.

I wonder if any gun owners will fail to go to doctors for mental diagnosis of anything for fear of ending up being denied rights.

Just going to see a psychologist or psychiatrist doesn't revoke your gun rights, not even a diagnoses of depression is sufficient. You actually have to be involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a judge (or some other lawful authority), so there is some due process involved. Even voluntarily checking yourself into an institution doesn't count.

Correct. But imagine for a moment a person who doesn't understand much of the law except that mental issues can be considered grounds for denial of gun rights, and is dealing with a minor depression. What if that thought that maybe the doctor will decide it isn't minor, or discover it is something else, push him away from seeking treatment?

There are already people who believe this.

It's not an uncommon question on gun forums to have someone ask if their going to see a psychiatrist or receiving a prescription anti-depression medication puts them at risk of losing their gun rights. It was also a common myth that a veteran diagnosed with PTSD would lose their gun rights as well.

Those who are paranoid will believe whatever they like, and all we can hope to do is properly educate those who are willing to hear it.

I have no problem with such laws so long as legal due process is involved, and preferably if there is some way to regain your rights if/when your condition is resolved.

Keep in mind that as written the law doesn't make it illegal for those who have mental health problems to own a firearm. What the law does is allow the NCIS to search for mental health records for people who are buying a firearm to make sure that they aren't on the list of people who can't, because of other laws, own a gun.

The people are already denied the right to legally own a gun, this law just gives system a faster and better way to confirm it then to take the word of the person who is buying the gun to honestly check the box that asks... "Are you prevented from owning a fire arm because of a mental health condition."

Correct. But imagine for a moment a person who doesn't understand much of the law except that mental issues can be considered grounds for denial of gun rights, and is dealing with a minor depression. What if that thought that maybe the doctor will decide it isn't minor, or discover it is something else, push him away from seeking treatment?

I'm not sure I understand. If this person is aware enough to make this calculation, why would this new data integration be the turning point? It's already grounds for denial.

Correct. But imagine for a moment a person who doesn't understand much of the law except that mental issues can be considered grounds for denial of gun rights, and is dealing with a minor depression. What if that thought that maybe the doctor will decide it isn't minor, or discover it is something else, push him away from seeking treatment?

Wait, can we apply this twisted logic to all laws? I mean you are saying the law has problems because an insane person who didn't actually read the law might then decide the law states something it doesn't and as such not get help.

What law couldn't have some crazy person who didn't read it, decide that it says something it doesn't and as such they decide NOT to seek help.

That's like saying the problem with Obama's Health Care plan wasn't the fact that it had "death panels" which would decide who should live or die and then KILL the person right after it ruled via lethal injection, but the fact that some crazy people who had never read the law decided that's what it said and so they refused to go to the hospital.

That's like saying the problem with Obama's Health Care plan wasn't the fact that it had "death panels" which would decide who should live or die and then KILL the person right after it ruled via lethal injection, but the fact that some crazy people who had never read the law decided that's what it said and so they refused to go to the hospital.

That's a pretty good summary of the health care reform debate, actually.

Correct. But imagine for a moment a person who doesn't understand much of the law except that mental issues can be considered grounds for denial of gun rights, and is dealing with a minor depression. What if that thought that maybe the doctor will decide it isn't minor, or discover it is something else, push him away from seeking treatment?

Wait, can we apply this twisted logic to all laws? I mean you are saying the law has problems because an insane person who didn't actually read the law might then decide the law states something it doesn't and as such not get help.

Did you see an assertion anywhere in my post? I was simply asking if perception by gun owners who might have treatable mental issues aren't seeking them due to a misconception of the law. Which excelon provided data on. And apperantly even the ATF realized it was enough of an issue to amend the language on form 4473! FFS, where did I even imply that a law needed changing?!

I was simply asking if perception by gun owners who might have treatable mental issues aren't seeking them due to a misconcetpion of the law.

Anecdotally I've seen suggestions of that in person related to that specific issue.

Along the same lines I know many professional pilots are wary as hell of any sort of medical professional for similar reasons.

But given the general and significant social stigma associated with any sort of mental problems, I think the question would broadly apply (to some degree) to large sections of the population, and not just owners of firearms.

Any time a person's ability to do something they consider significant in their life comes down to a {seemingly) subjective judgement by someone else, they're going to be extremely reluctant to seek help or admit to any sort of "weakness" along those lines. It's a natural response.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

Justified, I think, after sixty years of steady, unconstitutional federal encroachment from 1934 to 1994.

I don't agree that it is directly a 2A issue. I do, however, think the argument could be made it is at least tangentially so if it will shut up some of the gun grabber critics.

Quote:

Quote:

I believe that MightySpoon's point is that while we know what we are doing, impartial observers aren't able to discern the difference.

I don't take it for granted that you know what you are doing.

That's your choice. But in the context of safety being paramount, you really cannot deny that I am being consistent.

MightySpoon wrote:

leavitron, when you make posts like this (citing a study by pediatricians for extra hilarity), it's not even remotely clear to me what your larger point is besides disagreeing situationally with whatever argument is put in front of you:

I frankly don't understand what you find hilarious. The only thing I am is frustrated at having to repeat the same handful of things over and over and over because people are too lazy or too arrogant to go back a few pages and read where the items have already been covered.

I linked to a study because providing a basis for one's thoughts is generally considered a good idea. If you don't want me to back things up I can stop doing so.

I am sorry that you don't see my big picture. I really don't know what else to say. I assure you, though, that I have much better things to do than just argue for the sake of arguing. Maybe you're right. though. Maybe it didn't contribute anything to the discussion. It's not the first time I've done that and it's certainly not the last.

Quote:

So if it's your belief that kids can't be trusted not to fuck with guns regardless of what they are taught...

That's a mighty big "if." And it's not an exact representation of the facts or my stance. The correct interpretation is that at least some kids are attracted to guns and won't follow the "don't touch" rules they are taught.

Quote:

... and locking mechanisms do not fit your standard of absolute safety / are a conspiracy, then what is your solution? You have kids and guns, presumably, so this is something you grapple with.

For the sake of argument, what doctorly or casual advice would you give yourself?

First, I'm not saying conspiracy. At least not a conspiracy to artificially inflate accidental gun deaths as a means of bringing about more gun restrictions. The Brady Campaign is stupid, but I hope not that evil.

Second, I've stated this several times already, "casual advice" is not a good idea. It puts too much trust in "common sense" of parents. It puts too much trust that they can sift through all the crap on Google and find things like the Defcon video so that they can actually make good decisions.

So, with those things said, I would give out very specific advice. The very same thing I have said in this thread several times already. But since you cannot be bothered to go back and read it, I'll say it yet again.

-I would specifically recommend to parents not to trust the basic locking boxes in which guns come new from the factory.-I would specifically recommend to parents not to trust trigger or cable locks, period.-I would specifically recommend to parents to get a quality gun cabinet or safe. (Cabinet = a steel box, unlined, that locks with either a barrel key or a standard key. Safe = steel box with a liner, typically fire resistant, and more likely has a combination or electronic lock.)-I would specifically recommend to parents to lock ammo in a separate container from the guns.

I believe that risk grows with the age of the child. But if you start the parents out mitigating the bulk of the risk from the time their child is a newborn then the habits are already developed. This is not how I figured things out. I made some foolish choices. I am fortunate I was able to correct my mistakes without any accidents happening. I don't want others to repeat my mistakes because the results could be disasterous.

MightySpoon wrote:

I just want to be clear that I'm not suggesting any law directly influence manufacture or mandating types of storage of firearms.

Neither am I. I don't want to legislate anything at this point. (Unless we can somehow legislate Brady Campaign out of existence, but that's another discussion.)

I hinted at the root of my concern just above. The root of my concern is that people simply don't realize that they probably don't know enough to keep guns safely out of the hands of children. In my opinion there is simply too much misinformation out there for the average Joe with no time on his hands to sift through.

Quote:

I'm concerned with a) the consumer safety standards to which third-party locking mechanisms are held (which may or may not be government mandated, and b) the "best practices" for storage and safety in a household with children, as advocated by knowledgeable individuals or organizations that are considered reliable by people that Know What They Are Doing, per leavitron's assertion.

According to a FOIA we submitted to the NFA Branch of the BATFE, in 2008 there were just over 20,000 form 4 transfers for silencers. In 2011 they recorded over 50,000. Also, after asking the NFA branch how many forms 4 transfers for silencers they project for 2012 they said over 70,000! If you average the silencer industry growth for the last 5 years its approximately 26% per year.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

Justified, I think, after sixty years of steady, unconstitutional federal encroachment from 1934 to 1994.

Not to mention the various onerous State legislation passed over the same period.

I don't agree that it is directly a 2A issue. I do, however, think the argument could be made it is at least tangentially so if it will shut up some of the gun grabber critics.

I don't follow. If the complaint is that 3rd party locking mechanisms are sub-par, then how is holding those devices to higher standards specifically a 2A issues? It's not the firearm itself.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I believe that MightySpoon's point is that while we know what we are doing, impartial observers aren't able to discern the difference.

I don't take it for granted that you know what you are doing.

That's your choice. But in the context of safety being paramount, you really cannot deny that I am being consistent.

I don't see how being consistently obstinate is really a virtue in this case. If your concern is really about safety, then the response is to support increasing the available of high-quality and timely information available to decision-makers and advice-givers, not shut off the valve for professionals for which you have a bone to pick. Contrary to your estimation, the common information available to pediatricians isn't atrociously poor.

Quote:

MightySpoon wrote:

leavitron, when you make posts like this (citing a study by pediatricians for extra hilarity), it's not even remotely clear to me what your larger point is besides disagreeing situationally with whatever argument is put in front of you:

I frankly don't understand what you find hilarious. The only thing I am is frustrated at having to repeat the same handful of things over and over and over because people are too lazy or too arrogant to go back a few pages and read where the items have already been covered.

I linked to a study because providing a basis for one's thoughts is generally considered a good idea. If you don't want me to back things up I can stop doing so.

Your view on the relative merits of pediatrician's capability seems to vacillate based on whether it's convenient to your argument at the time.

Quote:

First, I'm not saying conspiracy. At least not a conspiracy to artificially inflate accidental gun deaths as a means of bringing about more gun restrictions. The Brady Campaign is stupid, but I hope not that evil.

Second, I've stated this several times already, "casual advice" is not a good idea. It puts too much trust in "common sense" of parents. It puts too much trust that they can sift through all the crap on Google and find things like the Defcon video so that they can actually make good decisions.

So, with those things said, I would give out very specific advice. The very same thing I have said in this thread several times already. But since you cannot be bothered to go back and read it, I'll say it yet again.

-I would specifically recommend to parents not to trust the basic locking boxes in which guns come new from the factory.-I would specifically recommend to parents not to trust trigger or cable locks, period.-I would specifically recommend to parents to get a quality gun cabinet or safe. (Cabinet = a steel box, unlined, that locks with either a barrel key or a standard key. Safe = steel box with a liner, typically fire resistant, and more likely has a combination or electronic lock.)-I would specifically recommend to parents to lock ammo in a separate container from the guns.

Great, the public education documents on gun safety largely agree with you from the AAP's public information portal at healthychildren.org.

Quote:

I believe that risk grows with the age of the child. But if you start the parents out mitigating the bulk of the risk from the time their child is a newborn then the habits are already developed. This is not how I figured things out. I made some foolish choices. I am fortunate I was able to correct my mistakes without any accidents happening. I don't want others to repeat my mistakes because the results could be disasterous.

Great, then why do you seem so inherently mistrustful of medical professionals to modulate their advice based on their own knowledge, comfort level with their own level of expertise, and medical context?

Quote:

MightySpoon wrote:

I just want to be clear that I'm not suggesting any law directly influence manufacture or mandating types of storage of firearms.

Neither am I. I don't want to legislate anything at this point. (Unless we can somehow legislate Brady Campaign out of existence, but that's another discussion.)

I hinted at the root of my concern just above. The root of my concern is that people simply don't realize that they probably don't know enough to keep guns safely out of the hands of children. In my opinion there is simply too much misinformation out there for the average Joe with no time on his hands to sift through.

There's not as much misinformation as you seem to think in terms of practical safety measures. It's only because you found one place that showed an incompatible trigger lock and overstate the implications that free cable-locks are not impervious. The Brady Campaign bugbear is a sideshow to this specific conversation about medical professionals being able to practice their craft.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help that any attempt to increase the regulation or quality of safety measures related to firearms incites howls of protest from gun advocate groups and their foot soldiers.

Justified, I think, after sixty years of steady, unconstitutional federal encroachment from 1934 to 1994.

Not to mention the various onerous State legislation passed over the same period.

Then it's a good thing that the context in which I made that comment made it clear that I wasn't writing about anything you're talking about.

I don't follow. If the complaint is that 3rd party locking mechanisms are sub-par, then how is holding those devices to higher standards specifically a 2A issues? It's not the firearm itself.

One of the mantras of those who support more handgun control is that guns are unsafe. This resonates with a lot of the public. If we can make the short-comings of current-generation locks known and get them improved, then this has the added benefit of removing that pillar of the gun control argument. Win-Win in my book.

Quote:

I don't see how being consistently obstinate is really a virtue in this case. If your concern is really about safety, then the response is to support increasing the available of high-quality and timely information available to decision-makers and advice-givers, not shut off the valve for professionals for which you have a bone to pick. Contrary to your estimation, the common information available to pediatricians isn't atrociously poor.

It would appear that you are guilty of selective reading. I specifically said that I am for better information. I specifically said that ped's should give out detailed information. (If you don't like my qualifier, that is your problem.) I even took the time to list out the details that are IMO necessary. I see you quoted them below. I have also said, several times now, that I DO NOT support any law that restricts a doctor from asking about guns. So I don't know why you insist on painting me with this perspective that isn't entirely accurate.

Oh and citation please. Please show me where there is such a wealth of available and accurate information that meets the standards I have set.

Quote:

Your view on the relative merits of pediatrician's capability seems to vacillate based on whether it's convenient to your argument at the time.

I think you're confusing me with Ozy. He is the one who pushed the point that peds don't have time or energy to adequately research to make recommendations on gun safes, etc. I agreed with him to keep the discussion going.

In the case you are referring to it was a research study. It's painfully obvious that in such a case the doctors were gainfully employed to conduct said study. So in that case they had the time and energy to do so. The point is that it's a completely different scenario than the average Joe Pediatrician practicing day-to-day.

Quote:

Great, the public education documents on gun safety largely agree with you from the AAP's public information portal at healthychildren.org.

Uh, not even close.

I went to said portal. I fumbled around attempting to find docs on safe storage of guns in the home. Found nada. So I entered "gun" into the search box. I perused the first 5 docs that came up and they don't say what you think they say.

1) Where We Stand: Gun Safety If this is all you looked at I can see where you might think that they echo what I said. But only with a half-ass reading of what I said and with some wishful interpolation of what they said. They first insist the safest home is one without a gun. Thank you captain obvious! They then provide vague guidelines "unloaded and locked" instead of the specifics that I gave. So you've have to be a moron to equate what I said to what they said here.

But let's talk about "locked" for a moment. I was specific, and for good reason. I want people to understand what is safely locked up. Anything that doesn't fit my specifics isn't safely locked up. It's that simple. But the AAP is horribly vague. Why? Maybe the author was just lazy. But if this is their policy statement then it should be thoroughly vetted, yes? It's almost as if they want parents to stumble on this. Maybe they want parents to be falsely secure for some reason. Sounds like something the Brady Campaign would do. (I'll get back to BC in a moment.)

2) Gun Safety: Keeping Children Safe The first thing they do is generically quote "research" without citing. Their first, highest recommendation is to "NEVER" have a gun in the home with children. With specific emphasis on not having a handgun and getting rid of any guns you do have. Three-fourths of the article is saying to get rid of guns. Then and only then, as if a footnote, do they say this gem: "For those who know of the dangers of guns but still keep a gun in the home." and then proceed to list three bullet point items. Note that in neither this document nor in their "policy statement" above do they make a provision for safe storage of a defensive firearm - i.e. locked and loaded. Because according to their uncited sources a loaded gun is only going to cause misery. And we (the AAP) wouldn't ever be guilty of carefully selecting statistics that confirm our biases. (/sarcasm)

3) According to our next example, Handguns in the Home, "Firearms violence is a national health crisis." Hint: When you mash together all murder, attempted murder, suicide, and negligent discharges then sure you can come up with a scary number. But that number has exactly jack and squat to do with safe handgun storage in the home. Then they throw out another juicy tidbit: even children trained in firearms use should never be allowed to touch a gun. (This right here should have even you rolling your eyes in disbelief.) And then the grand daddy of all, they do finally cite something. They rattle of a stat from the "Center to Prevent Handgun Violence." Who is this group? None other than the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The very group that several of us in this thread have shown to be outright deceitful. So the AAP, by citing Brady, just flushed their own credibility down the toilet right there.

4) Reducing the Risk of Gun Injury This article coaches parents to ask their neighbors if they have guns and if they explain to them the dangers. It also suggests asking the parents of their children's friends if they have guns in the house and to tell them about the dangers. The implication is to not allow your child to play with friends who's parents have guns in the house. Oh, and again stating "FACT"s without citing them.

5) An audio commentary on toy guns. Dr whats-his-schmuck emphasizes that children should not be allowed to have a toy gun that shoots any sort of projectile as the risk of injury to the face and eyes is too great. In other news, Nerf stock took a 20 point tumble today based on a bad rap from the AAP. (/sarcasm)

Conclusion: The AAP does not provide a balanced viewpoint that gun ownership is fine and responsibility is in the hands of parents. Rather they imply that only nutcases own guns when they have children in the house. Oh and it is okay to preach at your neighbors about the evils of guns. The AAP is horribly biased and thus should not be trusted to provide their members with reasonable information on the topic.

Quote:

Great, then why do you seem so inherently mistrustful of medical professionals to modulate their advice based on their own knowledge, comfort level with their own level of expertise, and medical context?

I've already answered this. Several times even. The deck is stacked against pediatricians providing reasonable advice. (Heh, I skipped euchre lunch to write this post. So throwing in a cards pun is appropriate here.)

Quote:

There's not as much misinformation as you seem to think in terms of practical safety measures. It's only because you found one place that showed an incompatible trigger lock and overstate the implications that free cable-locks are not impervious. The Brady Campaign bugbear is a sideshow to this specific conversation about medical professionals being able to practice their craft.

It's not what I think, it's what I know. And dissecting the AAP portal docs as I did above only goes to reaffirm this. Oh, and your summation of my points is lacking. I think you need to go back and read them again. You missed quite a bit.

You're also free to cite where I have prohibited doctors from practicing their craft. Apparently your reading comprehension is failing you because I said quite clearly in my last response to you that I am against any law that prohibits a doctor from asking questions.

House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida.

The amendment, which would withhold some grants from states that have such laws, will come as part of the House's debate on the Commerce Department spending bill.

"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

Legislation based on news-story-of-the-day is nearly always a bad idea, but it does make me wonder about the statistics. If these laws lead to an increase in "self-defense" killings without any decrease in crime, they're not worth having on the books, because they don't do anything but make it easier to shoot people legally.

Legislation based on news-story-of-the-day is nearly always a bad idea, but it does make me wonder about the statistics. If these laws lead to an increase in "self-defense" killings without any decrease in crime, they're not worth having on the books, because they don't do anything but make it easier to shoot people legally.

Simple enough.

Since the data shows that crime is trending downward in conjunction with these laws originally passing, I doubt anyone will be able to torture the data to show such a thing.

Since the data shows that crime is trending downward in conjunction with these laws originally passing, I doubt anyone will be able to torture the data to show such a thing.

Because any interpretation of the numbers supporting your opinion means you must be right, of course. Anyone who tries to show otherwise is "torturing the data".

Crime trends are on a far larger scale than any effect these laws might have, but that doesn't mean the laws have no effect. I didn't make any assertion about cause and effect, because I clearly don't have enough information to make such an assertion. Somehow, that obstacle didn't stop you.

In my opinion that situations like this involve firearms licensing is kind of an incidental issue. In my mind the greater issue here is equality under law.

So far the Supreme Court has granted the states broad leeway in regulating the possession and carry of firearms. That's their prerogative. What I find most offensive about laws like this is that they leave the decision making process to the arbitrary whims of government officials.

If a state or local government wants to set a high bar on these matters, I suppose that's their right. However the process should be clear, consistent, and everyone should be treated the same. We shouldn't have situations like in California where carry is technically legal, but you have to be politically connected to be issued the permit. It makes a mockery of the entire notion of rule of law.

It's also a good way to risk losing their right to set any bar at all. Philadelphia used to be much the same - you had to be hooked up to be able to get a permit to carry. However, it ended up backfiring on them (in part, because they tried to put some single mother who defended herself from a crackhead in jail - how dare she not let him stab her to death when she was on her way home from work) and the state ended up revoking the city's oversight on the matter. Now, Philadelphia has to find a really good reason (and strong evidence to back that reason up) if it doesn't want to issue someone a permit. Having said that, New York (state) isn't as conservative as Pennsylvania (sans Philadelphia) is, but I wouldn't push it either if I were NYC.

Since the data shows that crime is trending downward in conjunction with these laws originally passing, I doubt anyone will be able to torture the data to show such a thing.

Because any interpretation of the numbers supporting your opinion means you must be right, of course. Anyone who tries to show otherwise is "torturing the data".

Crime trends are on a far larger scale than any effect these laws might have, but that doesn't mean the laws have no effect. I didn't make any assertion about cause and effect, because I clearly don't have enough information to make such an assertion. Somehow, that obstacle didn't stop you.

No, because people have already tried to torture the data in this thread previously, resulting in myself and several others posting gobs of statistical data that indicate the pro-gun laws aren't having a negative effect that we can measure.

And I can guarantee you the politicos haven't bothered looking at a single statistic other than polling data on this subject.

Legislation based on news-story-of-the-day is nearly always a bad idea, but it does make me wonder about the statistics. If these laws lead to an increase in "self-defense" killings without any decrease in crime, they're not worth having on the books, because they don't do anything but make it easier to shoot people legally.

Simple enough.

Since the data shows that crime is trending downward in conjunction with these laws originally passing, I doubt anyone will be able to torture the data to show such a thing.

Crime in general is trending downward in states that have very restrictive gun control laws and states that very lax gun control laws. So not only do you need to show that crime is trending downwards, you would need to show that it is trending downward faster then in places without SYG laws.